Doctrine of Eclipse

The Doctrine of Eclipse is a principle of constitutional law in India that explains the effect of a fundamental rights violation on pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws. According to this doctrine, if any law enacted before the commencement of the Constitution of India (26 January 1950) is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, such a law is not void ab initio (from the beginning) but becomes inoperative or dormant to the extent of the inconsistency.
The law, however, is not completely dead—it is said to be “eclipsed” by the Fundamental Right. If, at any later stage, the restriction causing the inconsistency is removed (for instance, by a constitutional amendment or change in circumstances), the eclipsed law can revive and become operative again.

Origin and Legal Basis

The Doctrine of Eclipse is a judicially evolved principle based on the interpretation of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the effect of fundamental rights on existing and future laws.
Article 13 (1): “All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part (Fundamental Rights), shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”
From this provision, the courts inferred that pre-constitutional laws are not entirely nullified but merely rendered unenforceable where they conflict with Fundamental Rights.

Meaning and Essence

The term “Eclipse” in this context is metaphorical. It implies that a law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is overshadowed—similar to how the sun is temporarily obscured during a solar eclipse but is not destroyed. When the obstacle (inconsistency) is removed, the “sunlight” of constitutional validity returns, and the law shines again.
Hence:

• The law continues to exist but remains in a dormant or eclipsed state.
• It is not void ab initio, and thus can apply to those who are not protected by Fundamental Rights (for instance, non-citizens).
• It revives automatically when the inconsistency ceases to exist.

Applicability

The Doctrine of Eclipse applies mainly to pre-constitutional laws—those enacted before 26 January 1950. However, through judicial interpretation, its scope has been discussed concerning post-constitutional laws as well.

1. Pre-Constitutional Laws:
   • Such laws are not void from inception but are eclipsed by the Fundamental Rights.
   • They can be revived if the inconsistency is removed through constitutional amendment or judicial interpretation.
2. Post-Constitutional Laws:
   • Any law made after the Constitution came into effect and found inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void ab initio, as the legislature has no authority to enact unconstitutional laws.
   • Hence, the Doctrine of Eclipse generally does not apply to post-constitutional laws.

Landmark Judicial Decisions

1. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)
   • Facts: The case involved the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, which conferred monopoly powers on the state in motor transport services.
   • When the Constitution came into force in 1950, the law became inconsistent with Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business).
   • Later, the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, introduced Article 19(6), allowing state monopolies in business.
   • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the law was not void but merely eclipsed by Article 19(1)(g). After the constitutional amendment, the shadow was removed, and the law revived automatically.
   • Significance: This case firmly established the Doctrine of Eclipse in Indian constitutional law.
2. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)
   • The Court clarified that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws, as the legislature could not enact laws violating Fundamental Rights after the Constitution came into force.
   • A post-constitutional law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void from inception and cannot be revived later.
3. Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955)
   • Concerned the validity of Section 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, which prohibited alcohol consumption.
   • The Court held that a law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights remains unenforceable but not dead, and can apply to persons who are not protected under those rights.
4. State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974)
   • The Court reaffirmed that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not void but dormant, and they can be revived by removing the inconsistency through constitutional amendment.

Illustrative Example

Suppose a law enacted in 1940 restricted citizens from expressing political opinions publicly. After the Constitution came into effect in 1950, this law became inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).

• Under the Doctrine of Eclipse, this law does not become completely void—it remains eclipsed.
• It cannot be enforced against citizens who enjoy the protection of Article 19.
• However, it may still apply to non-citizens (who are not guaranteed Article 19 rights).
• If Article 19 is later amended to permit such restrictions, the law automatically revives and becomes operative again.

Relation with Void and Voidable Concepts

The doctrine distinguishes between:

• Void laws (Post-Constitutional): Laws enacted after 1950 that violate Fundamental Rights are unconstitutional from inception and cannot be revived.
• Eclipsed laws (Pre-Constitutional): Laws made before 1950 that conflict with Fundamental Rights are not nullified but lie dormant until revived.

Thus, the Doctrine of Eclipse acts as a middle path between declaring a law completely void and allowing it to continue in force despite constitutional inconsistency.

Constitutional and Jurisprudential Significance

1. Preservation of Legislative Continuity: It prevents the wholesale invalidation of pre-constitutional laws, maintaining legislative stability during the transition to constitutional governance.
2. Flexibility in Constitutional Interpretation: The doctrine enables the legal system to adapt to constitutional amendments and evolving interpretations of Fundamental Rights.
3. Balance between Supremacy of the Constitution and Legal Continuity: It upholds constitutional supremacy without disregarding the validity of past legislations entirely.
4. Promotion of Justice and Equality: By allowing the revival of laws once they comply with constitutional mandates, the doctrine promotes consistency with the dynamic spirit of Fundamental Rights.

Limitations

• It applies primarily to pre-constitutional laws; post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio.
• The revival of an eclipsed law depends on explicit or implied constitutional changes removing the inconsistency.
• The doctrine cannot validate a law retrospectively for the period when it was eclipsed.